In the ruling, the [New York] judge said the biology of the child was irrelevant and that [the adoptive mother] Scollar was 'indeed the more responsible parent looking out for the child’s best interests, not her own interests'.

She added that [the biological mother] Altman, a former producer for Martha Stewart’s TV show, 'behaved more as a friend or older sister than a responsible parent.'

She noted that Scollar had the child on a schedule, always brought her to school on time and to therapy appointments.

Altman, on the other hand was a 'freer spirit' and a 'more laid-back parent' who would 'miss therapy appointments or be late to school or camp bus because she overslept or felt that play dates were more important than therapy or that play dates should end late in the evening so that the child and she were too tired to commit to a schedule.'

Forget the importance of having a relationship with your natural mother and father. Scheduling. That's important.

The legal parent who did not try to kidnap or interefere with visitation is the parent who gets custody. I don't see any issues here. If the genders or biologies were different, we wouldn't even flinch.

Imagine: Single woman gets pregnant. Baby's father abandons her. She marries a new man shortly after the baby is born. Stand up guy adopts the baby. Later, the bio dad returns, cleans up his act, woos the woman away from her husband, they try to take the now older, grown child away from the only father she's ever known, the father who is legally her dad and guardian. The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind. Simple.

The parent who is more responsible, is the parent that deserves custody. Responsiblity is far more than simply adhering to a schedule, I bet the Judge based his decision on more than that, that we aren't privy to.

Some men and some women are not much more than sperm or egg donors. I'm not saying this is the case here, but the child's needs trump both Moms and Dad's issues.

Biology means nothing in the end. Your parents are those who raised you, not the ones who squeezed you out. At least the law still gets this. It would be a travesty if biological parents were able to get rights back that they have freely given up. That does not lead to a stable home.

If you're a biological parent and give your child up for adoption, you don't retain a right to kidnap said child from the adoptive parent later on if you change your mind.

But that isn't the situation here, as I understand it. There is a biological mother, a biological father, and an adoptive mother. It's the biological mother who took her daughter to CA. She didn't cede parental rights when her partner adopted the child, though the biological father presumably did.

A biological parent who later "regrets" his or her decision to give up a child, in most cases is not think of the child when they try to reclaim those rights. They are thinking about themselves. There are always exceptions, but in 99% of the cases the adoptive parents adopted the child for a reason - they wanted to be parents. Unlike the person who gave up the child.

To say that the law acted correctly (as it must given the law), and that bio parents are reaping the consequences of their own actions and choices, is not to say that adoptive mom was right to do as she did-- refuse to give sperm-donor dad any role in the kids' life.

Who's to say. It's a tricky situation. It might have been good for the kids to have a male "parental" (or at least "uncle") figure in their lives. But I can understand the actual (adoptive) parent feeling threatened by the bio dad's involvement, and the possibility of the kids' confusion over who really is the "parent."

It's funny that in this case life is following movie. (Though "The Kids Are All Right" had a different ending, in that case too bio dad is shut out in the end).

Michelle D.T. and nomennovum make a compelling point about the bio mom. Again, you have to test the case by substituting parents of different genders and sexual orientations in place of the principals here, and see how that strikes you. Differently? The same? Why?

(Would the court have ruled as it did with respect to bio mom if the adoptive parent wasn't a "mom"-- i.e. wasn't a woman? Would bio mom have had more of a claim, before many a judge, if the adoptive parent was a man?)

The judge wussed out, as usual, by making a "controversial" non-controversial ruling. The judge avoided addressing the actual merits of the dispute between the parties, e.g., should the biological dad have access, by deleting the biological parents altogether. The easy way out.

"Forget the importance of having a relationship with your natural mother and father. Scheduling. That's important."

Did you even read the article, Professor Althouse? I can't believe you could read that article and really believe the case was about scheduling. More likely it was about kidnapping the kid and falsely accusing the ex of alcoholism and abuse. Behavior like that would lose most any child custody case.

Surprisingly, this post of Ann's reminds me about the post about gay marriage.

First, the state fucks up heterosexual marriage by making it so damn easy -- finacially and otherwise -- for a marriage to be dissolved. Next thiong you know, dumb gays are dumb enough to want to marry -- just like the straights.

Second, the state, as part of it's marriage fucking-up process, fucks up child custody issues which result from heterosexual marriage. Third, the state allows unmarried people to adopt children. So gays begin to indulge in child-rearing.

Needless to say, divorce is terrible for the mental health of the children. So the children of gays, already confused and suffering from the unusual sexual relationship of their parents, are further damaged by the breakup of gay marriages (or whatever their state's in-all-but-name-only arrangement is called).

Yeah. It's all for the children. That's what the judges tell all the fathers who are in the process of being divorce raped. Funny thing is, they never ask the kids whether all that misery was beneficial to them.

I can see the kidnapping charge in the instance of two biological parents where one attempts to keep the child from the other. But in this case the adoptive parent was only given this title "parent" by agreement of the actual biological mother. All contracts are subject to revocation under circumstances. It would seem that the biologic mother simply decided to terminate both both her relationship with the adoptive parent, and the relationship of the child with the adoptive parent, which was established only on the existing lesbian relationship. Which it appears has now ended.

This is the disastrous outcomes of the willful selfishness of people who aren't meant to have children and yet the child is the tool for their insidious proclivities and no one wins when the child should be.

Somewhat indirectly, this is what many, if not most, of the anti-gay marriage people are talking about. That a child is best if bred and raised by his mother and father. Or a loving traditional in-tact adapted mother and father.

Broken homes, single parents, and now homosexual parents, do not lead to the best upbringing.

I can't believe everyone here is overlooking the obvious. The birth mom's brain became contaminated with her son's (and through him the birth dad's) DNA. This changed her from a normal healthy lesbian to a freakish heterosexual, presumptively unsuitable to rear children.

Imagine: Single woman gets pregnant. Baby's father abandons her. She marries a new man shortly after the baby is born. Stand up guy adopts the baby. Later, the bio dad returns, cleans up his act, woos the woman away from her husband, they try to take the now older, grown child away from the only father she's ever known, the father who is legally her dad and guardian. The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind.

Problem: in many of these cases, the adoptive parents get hosed. Anyone remember the Baby Jessica case from the '90's?

[me:] She didn't cede parental rights when her partner adopted the child, though the biological father presumably did.

[you:] But you can say she forfeited those rights, at least of custody, by attempting to kidnap the children.

Child, yashu. As in singular. Just one.

A father who did the same thing would certainly lose those rights, no?

A father who moved to another state with his daughter and without his daughter's stepmother? Probably. A mother who moved to another state with her daughter and without her daughter's stepfather? I doubt it.

This is a straight up equity question. I practice primarily domestic relations law in Mississippi, and am not licensed in NY, but family law courts are generally courts of equity. Coupling principles of equity with the so-called polestar consideration (the best interests of the child), this case is a slam dunk and the judge did the right thing.

Child custody contest between lesbian partners "divorcing" -- child conceived in vitro with one partner egg, emplanted into second partner for gestation and delivery. Thus one is biological (DNA) mother , the other is the birth mother. Issue -- who should get custody?

" The court won't allow it, issues custody and visitation arrangements, the bio parents don't like it, abscond with child, then full custody is given to the adoptive father because he is acting like a grown-up with the best interests of the child in mind. Simple. "

I guess you missed that case a few years ago where the mother died and her husband, who was the only father the child had ever known and who lived in rural Montana, was raising the child. The bio dad showed up, claimed he hadn't known about the baby and got custody. The child was transferred to Illinois to the dad he had never seen and didn't know.

Nomennovum, any parent is shit if they neglect their child. More men are getting custody of their children nowadays than in the past. You sound bitter."

The men who are getting custody are usually getting it when the child support runs out at 18. My ex was crazy when we divorced. I was worried that she would kill my daughter and herself. The court psychologist decided it would be too traumatic for my ex if we took the child from her. No mention of the child who was six at the time.

Fortunately, she survived and my ex stopped drinking and taking prescription drugs. My daughter doesn't like to talk about those years until she was 18 and could live with me. She and her mother are on good terms again but it's one of those "She's just mom" situations. I'm glad it worked out, no thanks to the psychologist.

If you are six years old, and already have therapy appointments, someone is doing something wrong, whether the appointments are kept or not.

I was thinking the same thing.

is not to say that adoptive mom was right to do as she did-- refuse to give sperm-donor dad any role in the kids' life.

How could the mom even do that, if the other mom let the dad see the kid? If you have two parent disagreeing on something like that, can't one just let him see the kid? I mean, it would be bad for the relationship between the couple, but probably good for the kid (unless the dad was pretty awful).

Taking the kid and running away is generally going to make you lose a custody battle, all things being equal.

" .. the so-called polestar consideration (the best interests of the child)."

Which is defined as "not being with the father when at all possible."

If the the courts and the law truly had the "best interests of the children" at heart, separating father, mother and children would be a very very difficult matter -- one done only in the most egregious cases. Instead the law and the courts make the destruction of the family ever easier.

Does anyone here have any idea what a "vow" means, what it entails, what it's purpose is?

The worst words a child can hear: "Your mother and I are getting a divorce."

The old excuse, "it's better for the kids than living in a miserable marriage" has been shown to be the self-serving lie that it is.

If the facts are as they are presented here then, it sounds like the right decision, BUT:

If you truly believed that the adoptive mother was much worse for your child, and it was your child, then would you still avoid taking any risky tactics to win? Wouldn't you do almost anything to get your child in that case? If you did, wouldn't you lose this case the same way they did. Wouldn't deep love and desperate concern for your child's safety and future look a lot like being unfit, and maybe a little crazy?

I just hope they didn't simply pick the more likable character, because that's not what's important here.

OMG...don't say shit like that without warning, gives my diaphragm cramps from laughing.

Now on the other remark...

Anyone who says blood, etc., doesn't matter should walk in the shoes of a kid with no history...[snip]...That's also, still, one effect of slavery most don't want to to deal with, btw,...

That is definitely worth discussion, both aspects, but it isn't going to happen here, not sure why I think that...at least I don't think it will. It is a very serious matter and one, as you say, most folks avoid on all sides....but points to how much of our history has evolved. You and I have exchanged thoughts on family bonds and associations before, and the subject you broach here is part of that discussion.

"Nomennovum, he practices domestic relations law, it would be interesting hearing HIS perspective. Get it?"

Oh, gee, Inga. Thanks. I knew he was a matrimonial lawyer, but I had forgotten how smart you are: You know that all domestic relations lawyers have these nation-wide child custody statistics in their heads and at the ready.

And, if you remember, you didn't ask for his "perspective." You asked for the child custody statistics.

1. Not knowing what these women looked like prior to reading the article and avoiding the picture labels, I looked at the women's faces and tried to decide--just on appearance, which was Brook Altman and which was Allison Scollar. Guessing that Ms. Scollar was the nicer lady, I picked the face of the nicer-looking woman. I chose correctly. I know 50/50 chance.

2. Another thing I wonder about, or like, depending on the reason: Altman was on the left side in each of the three pictures that contained both women. So I wonder if they always pose that way, or did the thoughtful editors at The Daily Mail just help their readers keep track by using consistant pictures?

Presumably the key legal event here was the adoption, and without that custody would have gone to the biological mother. The potential of losing your child is something to consider as the biological parent before allowing a nonbiological parent to adopt.

The potential of losing your child is something to consider as the biological parent before allowing a nonbiological parent to adopt.

sounds like a job for regulation including a cooling off period, waiting period, and a recission period with multiple signed full disclosures, and unlimited liability for attorneys that don't disclose properly.

Nomenovum, it's not that I don't have sympathy for men who deserve custody, but you have taken this custody issue for men to an extreme, give custody to the father if the children veto the divorce? Then you go on to complain about child support, you revealed plenty right there.

Life is too short, and life goes on after personal devastation, this I know.

My practice is about 70/30 fathers/mothers. At least in Mississippi, in my district (one of the better ones, by all accounts) men and women begin on an even basis. However, once an initial custody determination is made, it is a very high burden of proof to adjust it. So I caution my male clients to make sure that if they agree to give the mother primary custody, they understand that they are stacking the deck against themselves in the future.

The rules of practice in this field are clear: advantage goes to the first filer. And there's a distinct advantage to contesting custody early, if the parent has real concerns about the moral fitness or parental fitness of the other parent.

The adoptive mother was the only party that didn't break the law. That's the reason she should have been awarded sole custody, even if it wasn't the judge's reason.

The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least. Don't know why that didn't seem to be mentioned here, but adoptive parents in many sates have identical rights to biological parents who have not lost their parental rights (voluntarily or otherwise) an are parents de jure. An agreement for one de jure parent and a non-parent third party to deprive the other de jure parent of contact with the child by removing him to a place unknown to the other de jure parent would seem to qualify as kidnapping. See Texas Penal Code Chapter 20, Section 20.02 (b) which states in pertinent part "[i]t is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;

(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.

Clearly the biological mother does not qualify for the affirmative defense under the statute. So she's a kidnapper and belongs in jail. Adoptive parent gets the kid; the other parent is unfit as a felon. End of story.

Wow, Nomenovum, you are bitter, my first impression was correct. I don't know what happened to you in your own situation, but your lamentation about child support is telling.

As far as the question I asked of Alex Ignatiev, the question was directed to him, not you. I assumed he would give his own perspective, that wasn't an unreasonable assumption.

You're impressions are never right you insipid fool? What the fuck do you think you're doing? Trying to psychoanalyze people you don't know and never met. It's like you pull these assessments out of a crackerjack box.

Inga: Oh your just bitter.

Inga: Oh now I know your bitter because my first impression to call you out as bitter is correct because i say it is. See, I knew that too.

Maybe shouting thomas should show you his incredibly huge dick just to shut you up. Slack jawed and all that.

"The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least."

That may be the law, but just look at what that says, and you can see that it should not be routine or taken lightly. I could easily see the child as an adult feeling robbed by the court's decision, and thinking: what gives you the right to take my biological parents away from me? I can never get back my childhood being raised by them. I doubt such resentment is likely in reverse. People generally accept the fate of their biological heritage, which is one reason it should get some respect.

Always count a a bald farmer to come to the rescue of an unfair maiden and misuse the word "irony."

You have to forgive Inga her proclivities to find white knights on this forum. Balding, 1970 farmer fuck faces notwithstanding. Virgins need love too and the hope that they have internet defended a lady on a thread of a blog of a law professor no less, in an unrequited fashion is a small charity indeed.

"The biological father and the biological mother are probably guilty of attempted kidnapping at the least."

That may be the law, but just look at what that says, and you can see that it should not be routine or taken lightly. I could easily see the child as an adult feeling robbed by the court's decision, and thinking: what gives you the right to take my biological parents away from me? I can never get back my childhood being raised by them. I doubt such resentment is likely in reverse. People generally accept the fate of their biological heritage, which is one reason it should get some respect.

Maybe if homosexuals weren't allowed to have children in this manner, then this wouldn't be an issue.

What? Is it abusive angry man with small penises day, here on Althouse today?

I have never heard as much whining by men as I have here in the Althouse commentariat. It's getting pathetic. Whenever Althouse posts a comment about women, out they come, the crybabies. "Women get all the jobs, women always get the children, women trick men into marrying them, women want to stay home so they don't have to go to work, women care only about their careers and not the children", etc, etc, women are the devil.

It happens because I get attacked, I defend myself and it's a snowball, duh. Early on I asked Shouting Thomas to stay on topic after he went off on some crazy rant. Men here do not like women who speak their minds, they go into attack mode and then complain when they get back as good as they gave, oh poor poor men.

You have to forgive Inga her proclivities to find white knights on this forum. Balding, 1970 farmer fuck faces notwithstanding. Virgins need love too and the hope that they have internet defended a lady on a thread of a blog of a law professor no less, in an unrequited fashion is a small charity indeed.

"A father who moved to another state with his daughter and without his daughter's stepmother? Probably. A mother who moved to another state with her daughter and without her daughter's stepfather? [emphasis added]"

Didn't get enough of hammering at Althouse for two days straight? If conservative men have turned into this ugly angry representation of a man, that seems to reside here on Althouse, then it's more than pitiful.

I can't believe everyone here is overlooking the obvious. The birth mom's brain became contaminated with her son's (and through him the birth dad's) DNA. This changed her from a normal healthy lesbian to a freakish heterosexual, presumptively unsuitable to rear children.

Men here do not like stupid women, like me, who speak their minds, they go into attack mode and then complain when they get back as good as they gave, oh poor poor men.

Fixed for truthiness. You see folks, this is the nonsensical tactic that this kind of moron employes. She's just a victim. She can't help it that she speaks her mind and men on here don't like it and that she defends her self against their poor wittle attacks. Those meany head men persons. Just so mean and so poor at being men because they are meanie heads and stuff.

Inga, you prove that your perpetual victimhood on this forum will never die with comments like yours. And you have the nerve to complain "I have never heard as much whining by men as I have here in the Althouse commentariat."

LOL. Really? A little pot kettle black much. Get over yourself. You are just a foil.

The biologic mother is the less attentive, less serious parent. More carefree attitude about raising children. Misses things. Careless, actually. Alcohol.

So what.

There are a lot of people successfully raising their own children that are worse parents than other childless people who want one, spent time with one and could do a better job, like nannies. In fact, there are a lot of flat irresponsible people raising kids all over the place.

My brother told me about one he met when he was placing puppies. A kid called so he didn't trust the situation and oddly went to check it out. The kid said, "oh, it's fine." So my brother went over to their house and the dad was watching TV and couldn't be bothered with a thing like a dog, or even a conversation about a dog, couldn't even look up, the kid wants a dog, eh, what kid? sure, yeah, a dog, sure, whatever.

Biology does not make you a parent. This is evidenced every day by crack whores, people with psychological issues, narcissistic personalities, abusive, drunken personalities. It is often best for the child to be raised by non biological caregivers or other family members than the direct biological DNA donors in many situations.

Leaving out the Lesbianism, which is not necessarily a prohibition to being a parental type of person, the bio mom and sperm donor sound like selfish and narcissistic personalities who really don't care that much about the child but more about gaining and keeping power.

The big clue in that is the mother forced her child to be inspected for vaginal child abuse at the age of 6. THIS is a very traumatic thing for a small child and to purposely put your child through this ordeal so you can 'get even' or 'get back' at another adult is horrific.

Biology does not make you a parent. This is evidenced every day by crack whores, people with psychological issues, narcissistic personalities, abusive, drunken personalities. It is often best for the child to be raised by non biological caregivers or other family members than the direct biological DNA donors in many situations.

Leaving out the Lesbianism, which is not necessarily a prohibition to being a parental type of person, the bio mom and sperm donor sound like selfish and narcissistic personalities who really don't care that much about the child but more about gaining and keeping power.

The big clue in that is the mother forced her child to be inspected for vaginal child abuse at the age of 6. THIS is a very traumatic thing for a small child and to purposely put your child through this ordeal so you can 'get even' or 'get back' at another adult is horrific

And you end up with someone like Urkel. I don't think we need to guess what his family life was like now do we. And this is what the outcome we have. This is nothing new, just the fact that it's a much more highlighted problem than it ever was before. Most of the time people kept their dirty laundry to themselves. Now with the ever increasing imaginings of what a family can constitute, we will have to endure stories like these from now on until this ship rights itself. If it doesn't, then the outcome will not be good in the long run.

It has been 25 years since I was awarded sole custody of my son in what proved a bitter divorce. At the time, my lawyer told me at the outset that there were three family court judges in our district, and every one of them felt that children belonged with the mother and ruled accordingly. If we were able to substantiate her perfidy and wickedness, we might have 50-50 chances. As a consequence, we played a long and patient game, and after a year of rope-a-dope, where her terms created new worlds at every sitting, we finalized the deal. No child support for me, of course, but plenty of father-funded visitation for her. Later, the ex, hard up for money in what would become a long series of failed lesbian relations, offered to sell me her visitation rights for cash. This was evil.

I would say that for all the pissing, whining, and moaning of every stripe of group with real or perceived grievances in this country, none in the past thirty years can match the record of state-sanctioned discrimination that exists against would-be custodial fathers. Bitter? Yes, Inga, deeply.

Meth, you do MORE than you fair share. The vitriol the sheer spittle flying vitriol is really quite disgusting. I will give you this, you understand that publishing another commenter's real name is wrong.

Oso Negro, I do understand the anguish a father must feel when he should be the custodial parent and loses his case. I'm glad you won your case. I even understand being bitter, what I don't understand is taking it out on anonymous commenters in a comments section on a blog.

It has been 25 years since I was awarded sole custody of my son in what proved a bitter divorce. At the time, my lawyer told me at the outset that there were three family court judges in our district, and every one of them felt that children belonged with the mother and ruled accordingly. If we were able to substantiate her perfidy and wickedness, we might have 50-50 chances. As a consequence, we played a long and patient game, and after a year of rope-a-dope, where her terms created new worlds at every sitting, we finalized the deal. No child support for me, of course, but plenty of father-funded visitation for her. Later, the ex, hard up for money in what would become a long series of failed lesbian relations, offered to sell me her visitation rights for cash. This was evil.

I would say that for all the pissing, whining, and moaning of every stripe of group with real or perceived grievances in this country, none in the past thirty years can match the record of state-sanctioned discrimination that exists against would-be custodial fathers. Bitter? Yes, Inga, deeply.

I know many men like you that have gone through this type of ordeal. A good friend of mine right now is dealing with this sort of situation and I know his wife (or thought I knew her) has gone off the deep end. His children are suffering because of her ability to craft an alternate reality in which new grievances arise from every situation where she feels that responsibility as an adult shouldn't be a part of her attribute as a parent. Then he has to go to mediation and depositions while his daughter runs amok every time she is with her and he has to deal with the fall out when he takes possession of her, only to see her run away and act out like her mother does while he tries to keep it all together only to tell me that his soon to be ex-wife comes up with a new grievance and why she needs more money and child support even though he is fighting for full custody, so that his lawyer can tell him he has a snowballs chance in hell to get that and she can milk the system for all it's worth. He's playing the long game too and amassing incriminating evidence against her so he can present it when it gets to court.

All so people like Inga can call men bitter because they want to fight to keep their families as intact as possible. Instead she is nothing more than a piling on of the institutionalized misandry that this country as attached itself too and courts as well. You can hear the misandry in her speech. Inga is a misandrist among other things, but this is consistent with the type of ideology she clings too.

Meth, you do MORE than you fair share. The vitriol the sheer spittle flying vitriol is really quite disgusting. I will give you this, you understand that publishing another commenter's real name is wrong.

Oh look, a moral equivalence argument. My vitriol towards you is directed and specific. Frankly, my vitriol towards leftards like you is directed and specific. I don't like you and what you represent ideologically. Your tracts of commentary here convict you of that charge all by themselves. You and I can have our differences and I attack you and your vile ideology. Yeah, vitriol is all well and good. If you can't take it, then this place isn't for you. Your little funny characterizations of me notwithstanding, I can see how you think getting your ass handed to you on everything you say can cause you to make the charge of this place being toxic. It's got to be tough to be a constant loser like you in all things commentary here at Althouse. I see you try, but you have no game. You think you are being effective. Instead you just come off as a whining victim.

Be that as it may, however, I do understand the nature of the kooks that run amok on the internet, but I would never abide by someone going to the lengths of outing anyone for the sheer sake of some twisted sense of revenge. It's not good and it's too bad that it happened to you. I don't care who you are in real life. I only care at destroying the entirety of the miserable ideology you defend here. Everything else is off limits to me.